G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY BANTILING, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of February 2, 1992, accused-appellant Jerry Bantiling shot and killed Severino Damaso with a .12 gauge homemade shotgun (pugakhang). Eyewitness Rolando Damaso, the victim’s brother, testified that he heard a gunshot, saw the appellant shoot the victim, and then heard the appellant shout to his brother, “Cantoy, it is finished.” The victim’s body was later found inside the appellant’s fenced yard. The victim’s wife, Edna Damaso, corroborated the report of the killing. The postmortem examination revealed the victim sustained eleven gunshot wounds from the rear, and the appellant’s father surrendered the shotgun used to the police.
The defense, anchored on self-defense and accident, presented a different narrative. The appellant claimed the victim, who was allegedly drunk and armed with a bolo, suddenly attacked him while he was guarding his farm. He asserted he fired his shotgun only once in self-defense as the victim charged at him. He further claimed he did not know he had hit the victim until he inspected the area later. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted the appellant of Murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Murder, or if his claim of self-defense and accident merits the reversal of his conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the killing but failed to establish the qualifying circumstance of treachery with the requisite moral certainty. The lone eyewitness did not see the commencement of the attack, and the number and location of the wounds alone are insufficient to prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. However, the Court emphatically rejected the appellant’s claim of self-defense and accident. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The appellant’s version was inherently improbable and uncorroborated. His act of firing a shotgun at close range, inflicting eleven wounds on the victim’s back, negates any claim of reasonable necessity or mere accident. His flight, failure to immediately report the incident, and the concealment of the body inside his yard are indicia of guilt. Consequently, the appellant is guilty of the lesser crime of Homicide. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence and awarded civil indemnity, actual and moral damages, and loss of earning capacity to the victim’s heirs.